LEGO Star Wars Set Discussion 2025 - READ FIRST POST!!!

[icm]

I realize I'm in the minority here, but every review I see of the CTT just makes me want it more. The base model makes a terrific Classic Space Moonbus, and perversely, even the fragility of that model makes me want it more. You see, Bricksie just posted another video where he gives it a pretty good shake and the whole superstructure falls off, but the base section stays pretty firmly attached to the wheels. I look at that and I think: take that base and the superstructure parts that fell off and you're 90% of the way toward a nice big flatbed cargo vehicle for a CS Moonbase. Imagine a two-vehicle convoy of these things heading over the lunar terrain to a dig site where they're excavating a Monolith. One CTT is the base model, carrying a full crew of scientists and engineers. The other CTT is the flatbed cargo vehicle, carrying a load of scientific equipment and digging tools. Now I've talked myself into wanting TWO of these ... IF AND ONLY IF I can find them for half-price or less without minifigures!

[Llewop]

2 hours ago, icm said:

I realize I'm in the minority here, but every review I see of the CTT just makes me want it more. The base model makes a terrific Classic Space Moonbus, and perversely, even the fragility of that model makes me want it more. You see, Bricksie just posted another video where he gives it a pretty good shake and the whole superstructure falls off, but the base section stays pretty firmly attached to the wheels. I look at that and I think: take that base and the superstructure parts that fell off and you're 90% of the way toward a nice big flatbed cargo vehicle for a CS Moonbase. Imagine a two-vehicle convoy of these things heading over the lunar terrain to a dig site where they're excavating a Monolith. One CTT is the base model, carrying a full crew of scientists and engineers. The other CTT is the flatbed cargo vehicle, carrying a load of scientific equipment and digging tools. Now I've talked myself into wanting TWO of these ... IF AND ONLY IF I can find them for half-price or less without minifigures!

Surely you could PAB the parts you want and save yourself a ton of money? 

[icm]

Maybe, but I hope it'll be a lot easier to find a couple of half-price sets without figs than to PAB the parts. I recently bought the Siege Encampment for $280 sticker price + $20 shipping + sales tax after I missed pre-ordering it for $230 sticker price + sales tax because I priced out ordering the parts list on PAB and Bricklink and found that would cost a lot more. Of course, that's without substituting any of the more expensive parts, beginning with any loose parts from my bins, or leaving off parts of the set that are less inspiring. The limiting factor with parting out the Siege Encampment, or the new CTT, on PAB or Bricklink or even the bulk bins at Bricks & Minifigs is time - time to curate a parts list, time to go through my bins and see what I already have, time to find the best price for parts+shipping on PAB or Bricklink, time to very carefully sift through the bins at B&M. I don't have time for that. It'll be a heck of a lot easier to start with one or two sets if I can get them. Incidentally, for the last year I've been slowly working on a customized version of the 42180 large Technic rover from 2024, in order to make it much more well-suited for minifigs and more integrated into the broader CS'24 theme. Eventually I want to make instructions for that and put them on Rebrickable. But I haven't had time to finish my mods to that set in real life yet, much less build a digital version and make instructions for it. When the time comes, it'll be fun to take pictures of my 42180 CS'24 Mars heavy exploration rover modded from Technic alongside my 75413 Classic Space Moonbus modded from Star Wars.

[Darth_Bane13]

9 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

How anyone in this day and age can think a solidly executed UT-AT can't sell well because of obscurity or it's form factor is beyond me. The Clone Turbo Tank sucks megablocks but it's feared to be picked up by many fanatics because of the desirable minifigures. But the UT-AT wouldn't because it's less regocnizable? Come on, now... The "obscurity" argument is overrated. It's less about kids absolutely having to know certain vehicles  and more like yet another cool looking thing with Clone Troopers at the ready for action. 

Thank you. They went through the trouble of making Galactic marines and commander Bacara and they had the same screen time as the UT-AT. lots of Star Wars AFOLS grew up with the prequels and would recognize the order 66 scene. People were also clearly hyped about the UT-AT leak.

8 hours ago, TotoMagnus said:

The CTT wasn’t that obscure in 2005 due to it being based on Concept Art for the AT-AT. So the design was kinda familiar (or well-known) to the Fans even before the movie got released.
The UT-AT on the other hand…got barely any form of recognition, it lived more or less only on some ILM Databanks. the form of propulsion also changed from it being a hovering vehicle before it was „revealed“ as being some form of skiing/sledding vehicle, iirc. 
 

That being said…Star Wars to a part lives and thrives from obscure Background characters or vehicles (the Rebel Attack Sled on Hoth being my favorite Shitto Vehicle), so a UT-AT would have been perfectly fine with me. Hell, with this figure selection I would have even preferred it over the CTT and on a whole it would sell equally compared to a CTT imho. (For the record: I wouldn’t have bought it, but I also won‘t buy the CTT). 

Casual fans still did not know what a CTT is/was. They just have to focus and making a good reasonably priced toy and it would sell well.

[CallumPears]

23 hours ago, Swordy said:

I’m consistently annoyed by the “Aayla’s lips aren’t pink” criticism. (Speaking of being polite online…) It’s splitting hairs when the argument is “The lips on a minifig have too much red in their pigment!” It comes down to subjective judgement more than objective criticism.

That absolutely is an objective thing though.

Yeah it's pretty small, but the subjective part is whether you think it's too small to be worth caring about. The fact that it is a flaw is objective. 

If this was the first Aayla we ever got then it'd be less of an issue, but just the simple fact that they got it correct on both of the previous versions doesn't help. It's a clear downgrade from the 2017 figure.

To me, it's obviously not ruining the set in itself but it's more of a "death by a thousand cuts" situation with all of the various minor inaccuracies we're getting now. 

17 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Aside from two seconds in revenge of the sith, the UT-AT has, in over twenty years, the canonical appearances of... it's wreckage being mentioned in the book Tarkin and a panel or two in a flashback in the tie-in series to the disney galaxy's edge theme part. (And it's not better in legends- it was in a BF2005 cutscene and there was some more wreckage in TFU.

Couldn't all of this apply to the AT-AP too? It's in the background of RotS for a few seconds, and outside of that it has a couple of minor appearances in videogames and comics. If that could get 3 sets, then surely the UT-AT can get 1. 

Edited July 7 by CallumPears

[Llewop]

1 hour ago, CallumPears said:

That absolutely is an objective thing though.

Yeah it's pretty small, but the subjective part is whether you think it's too small to be worth caring about. The fact that it is a flaw is objective. 

If this was the first Aayla we ever got then it'd be less of an issue, but just the simple fact that they got it correct on both of the previous versions doesn't help. It's a clear downgrade from the 2017 figure.

To me, it's obviously not ruining the set in itself but it's more of a "death by a thousand cuts" situation with all of the various minor inaccuracies we're getting now. 

Couldn't all of this apply to the AT-AP too? It's in the background of RotS for a few seconds, and outside of that it has a couple of minor appearances in videogames and comics. If that could get 3 sets, then surely the UT-AT can get 1. 

I do think we are forgetting this is SW they set the benchmark for merchandise and making people want a tank that’s only appearance is to get blown up. Or a swamp speeder that is in like a single frame of the film or wanting a UCS set filled with random creatures based on a small part of a film. There are ships/tanks whatever that are more prominent or less prominent they are still desirable regardless if they have an hour screen time or literally a second. 

hindsight is great id rather now they try something new with the UT-AT rather than butcher the CTT like they’ve done. 

does anyone notice how this time round the official name of the set is the republic juggernaut and not a clone turbo tank like the previous ones?  
 

I’ve never watched clone wars yet I’ve wanted these 2 legions were getting since 2005 and both just feature In one scene. I am hoping we get a new AT-AP next year :D with another legion just to complete the set 

[Darth_Bane13]

3 minutes ago, Llewop said:

I am hoping we get a new AT-AP next year :D with another legion just to complete the set 

nah sorry it's just as obscure as the UT-AT so it will sell horribly according to people here on Eurobricks. Also I'm already seeing an alt build of the new CTT into a UT-AT, funny I thought no one wanted a UT-AT. 

[Llewop]

7 minutes ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

nah sorry it's just as obscure as the UT-AT so it will sell horribly according to people here on Eurobricks. Also I'm already seeing an alt build of the new CTT into a UT-AT, funny I thought no one wanted a UT-AT. 

If it has a clone in it will sell.  I e seen the alt build as well. Pretty impressive they are already doing MOCs shows how shoddy the set must be 

 

2 hours ago, icm said:

Maybe, but I hope it'll be a lot easier to find a couple of half-price sets without figs than to PAB the parts. I recently bought the Siege Encampment for $280 sticker price + $20 shipping + sales tax after I missed pre-ordering it for $230 sticker price + sales tax because I priced out ordering the parts list on PAB and Bricklink and found that would cost a lot more. Of course, that's without substituting any of the more expensive parts, beginning with any loose parts from my bins, or leaving off parts of the set that are less inspiring. The limiting factor with parting out the Siege Encampment, or the new CTT, on PAB or Bricklink or even the bulk bins at Bricks & Minifigs is time - time to curate a parts list, time to go through my bins and see what I already have, time to find the best price for parts+shipping on PAB or Bricklink, time to very carefully sift through the bins at B&M. I don't have time for that. It'll be a heck of a lot easier to start with one or two sets if I can get them. Incidentally, for the last year I've been slowly working on a customized version of the 42180 large Technic rover from 2024, in order to make it much more well-suited for minifigs and more integrated into the broader CS'24 theme. Eventually I want to make instructions for that and put them on Rebrickable. But I haven't had time to finish my mods to that set in real life yet, much less build a digital version and make instructions for it. When the time comes, it'll be fun to take pictures of my 42180 CS'24 Mars heavy exploration rover modded from Technic alongside my 75413 Classic Space Moonbus modded from Star Wars.

I see where your coming from I was lucky enough to get the siege encampment as I wanted a trebuchet and good siege tower I never went down the route of PAB the parts tbh I might still do as I haven’t opened it yet and see what comes out better value. 

considering the CTT only has 800 pieces I can’t see it being too expensive if your only wanting say half of it. But I only want the figures lol. I’m hoping more marines show up down the line but chances are it’ll be the magazine which means I’m going to have to crush some children’s dreams of getting a nice magazine with there pocket money

[ArrowBricks]

13 hours ago, Darth Malgus said:

On the current wave, I know from time to time we get Lego designers on here. I hope they see the feedback and take it on board...

Been in this since 99 and personally it is the most disappointing wave I can recall. So much hope, yet so poor execution.

Agreed, maybe not the worst but it’s another wave of great in principle, struggling in practice. 

12 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

How anyone in this day and age can think a solidly executed UT-AT can't sell well because of obscurity or it's form factor is beyond me.

Agreed, pretty much most fans know. The Turbo Tank is almost as obscure if we are considering younger fans of Lego. 

10 hours ago, Kaijumeister said:

From next year onwards, my main hopes for the theme in addition to a reduced emphasis on buildable items is a return to form for flagship summer sets - not gutting the piece count and actually giving solid builds. The penny pinching with this theme this year has been more absurd than normal.

Genuine question - do you consider the 2024 Star Destroyer as a flagship set? 

5 hours ago, icm said:

I realize I'm in the minority here, but every review I see of the CTT just makes me want it more. The base model makes a terrific Classic Space Moonbus, and perversely, even the fragility of that model makes me want it more. 

Atleast someone likes it and will buy it. 

1 hour ago, CallumPears said:

To me, it's obviously not ruining the set in itself but it's more of a "death by a thousand cuts" situation with all of the various minor inaccuracies we're getting now. 

Couldn't all of this apply to the AT-AP too? It's in the background of RotS for a few seconds, and outside of that it has a couple of minor appearances in videogames and comics. If that could get 3 sets, then surely the UT-AT can get 1. 

Some straight facts here. 

[icm]

9 minutes ago, ArrowBricks said:

Atleast someone likes it and will buy it.

But not new at full price, so it doesn't really count that I like it and will buy it. Someone else has to buy it first new at full price before I can get it used at half price without minifigures!

[ArrowBricks]

2 minutes ago, icm said:

But not new at full price, so it doesn't really count that I like it and will buy it. Someone else has to buy it first new at full price before I can get it used at half price without minifigures!

What a sad state of affairs. 

[Llewop]

9 minutes ago, ArrowBricks said:

What a sad state of affairs. 

But the only one to blame is Lego for downsizing and increasing prices 

[ArrowBricks]

24 minutes ago, Llewop said:

But the only one to blame is Lego for downsizing and increasing prices 

Couldn’t agree more, Lego have missed out on a bucket load of profits in the last 5 years or so. 

[Mandalorianknight]

18 hours ago, icm said:

Not to mention that the CTT was in the Episode III cross sections book, and was reprinted in two editions of Complete Vehicles

The only complaints about the Justifier's structural integrity were that the top wing flaps weren't secured on both ends, but the technic structure of the whole thing was sturdy.

Yup. This was a vehicle Lucasfilm wanted to push.

Good to know

17 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

You're ignoring the fact that the 2005 CTT was just as obscure as the UT-AT at the time and was still a very popular set.

So by your logic Lego should only make tie fighters, x-wings, and Millennium falcons since star wars fans, parents of kids aged 6-12, and kids aged 6-12, will recognize them WAY more than a CTT. You also ignored all the sets I mentioned that are just as obscure and yet were quite popular Lego sets. You also have to consider there are a lot of collectors who already have a CTT and would skip this one. At the end of the day they're both big clone vehicles that have highly desired clone troopers, the sales numbers would be negligible.

Even at the time there was more of a focus on the CTT, between the movie and associated merchandise (again, notice that this isn't unique to lego) but the bigger point is that it was the wave the movie came out in. There's always a lot more leeway for that type of thing.

Please reread the comment you replied to. I make very clear that that is not what I am saying.

[CallumPears]

1 hour ago, Llewop said:

I’ve never watched clone wars yet I’ve wanted these 2 legions were getting since 2005 and both just feature In one scene.

I have news for you then- neither of these legions appear in TCW except for 2 episodes where phase 1 Bly is present in season 1, a very brief background cameo of Bacara as a hologram and a quick shot of Aayla and Bly for the intro reel of a season 7 episode. 

[BrickPrick]

4 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

Thank you. They went through the trouble of making Galactic marines and commander Bacara and they had the same screen time as the UT-AT. lots of Star Wars AFOLS grew up with the prequels and would recognize the order 66 scene. People were also clearly hyped about the UT-AT leak.

No problem. And don't worry... i feel your comments. It's like people are so full of clone fatigue that it clouds their judgement when it comes to even more possible sets. 

1 hour ago, ArrowBricks said:

Agreed, pretty much most fans know. The Turbo Tank is almost as obscure if we are considering younger fans of Lego. 

Yeah, the aforementioned AT-AP, which received three versions so far, is another great example. And what about the Republic Fighter Tank? It got zero seconds of screen time in the PT and has a more famous presence in the Battlefront games. It still saw three releases as well. 

 

So to say the UT-AT can't even work as a one and done deal is a real head scratcher to me. The only point i agree with is that it wouldn't be suited as one of the flagship sets. But in the price range of up to ~80 bucks? Absolutely. 

Edited July 7 by BrickPrick

[Agent Kallus]

15 hours ago, Darth Malgus said:

On the current wave, I know from time to time we get Lego designers on here. I hope they see the feedback and take it on board...

Been in this since 99 and personally it is the most disappointing wave I can recall. So much hope, yet so poor execution.

I mean  the biggest problem is pricing which designers can't control.

[Darth_Bane13]

1 hour ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Even at the time there was more of a focus on the CTT, between the movie and associated merchandise (again, notice that this isn't unique to lego) but the bigger point is that it was the wave the movie came out in. There's always a lot more leeway for that type of thing.

Ok I will say that the CTT was slightly less obscure than the UT-AT in 2005. A cross section book and apparently other merchandise which I could not find, And also a few extra seconds of screen time. This feels like a straw man anyway, my original point being the UT-AT if done well would be a popular set. numerous other obscure clone sets have been made, swamp speeder, at-ap, fighter tank, at-ot.

[Mandalorianknight]

1 hour ago, CallumPears said:

for the intro reel of a season 7 episode. 

The best Grievous has ever looked.

1 hour ago, Agent Kallus said:

I mean  the biggest problem is pricing which designers can't control.

This is a wave where, shockingly, some blame actually CAN be placed on the designers. The price is mostly out of their control. The content is probably out of their control to an extent. But the turbo tank of cards is a pretty major misstep.

27 minutes ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

Ok I will say that the CTT was slightly less obscure than the UT-AT in 2005. A cross section book and apparently other merchandise which I could not find, And also a few extra seconds of screen time. This feels like a straw man anyway, my original point being the UT-AT if done well would be a popular set. numerous other obscure clone sets have been made, swamp speeder, at-ap, fighter tank, at-ot.

There's two things here-

1: What I am saying, and have been saying, is that the turbo tank would sell BETTER, which I feel is pretty clear. If we'd just gotten one it would be more in doubt, but it's been a decade. And again given that it's been a decade, I don't think the remake thing is as big of an issue.

2: Every other set you bring up, save the AT-OT which we got once as part of a multipack in a pseudo-UCS set 15 years ago, is a third of the price. That's a lot easier to pull off, and there are a lot more slots (Or at least, used to be) for small-mid range sets than the flagship system set of the year.

Edited July 8 by Mandalorianknight

[Darth_Bane13]

2 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

There's two things here-

1: What I am saying, and have been saying, is that the turbo tank would sell BETTER, which I feel is pretty clear. If we'd just gotten one it would be more in doubt, but it's been a decade. And again given that it's been a decade, I don't think the remake thing is as big of an issue.

2: Every other set you bring up, save the AT-OT which we got once as part of a multipack in a pseudo-UCS set 15 years ago, is a third of the price. That's a lot easier to pull off, and there are a lot more slots (Or at least, used to be) for small-mid range sets than the flagship system set of the year.

Lego to my knowledge has never actually given sales data on individual sets, so no it's obviously not clear and all speculation. I already responded earlier to your arguments on this and I thought your reasoning was flawed. I'd be fine with a turbo tank in 2026, but my problem is galactic marines and Bacara should've come with a UT-AT as it's actually IN the scene!! You say CTT sells more than a UT-AT because it's more popular, then why did they make the less popular dark falcon over an OT falcon? Why make the CG gunship instead of the regular? Also you complain about all the "clone bros", don't you think they would all buy a UT-AT? And I don't want to hear Lego is just for kids, half the sets are 18+, and clone sets are largely popular because of Gen Z AFOLS.

[CloneCommando99]

Day #75 of asking Lego to make a Tie Avenger

[Agent Kallus]

5 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Day #75 of asking Lego to make a Tie Avenger

Would an Advent calendar or magazine mini build suffice? That would improve your chances?

10 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

This is a wave where, shockingly, some blame actually CAN be placed on the designers. The price is mostly out of their control. The content is probably out of their control to an extent. But the turbo tank of cards is a pretty major misstep.

This fragility is a shame, but it is small potatoes compared to a price that absurd. I bought my sister a brand new Nintendo switch lite for less than that.

I suppose the price is a problem with the whole wave. And of the whole wave the Turbo tank isn't a set that interests me but the £90 Mtt does, only it's £140, the £25 big battle pack does only it's £35, Star wars sets have always been more expensive but this a joke.

[CallumPears]

(Edit: wow ok I kinda just started typing and this ended up being pretty long. Sorry for clogging up your screens lol)

So to summarise the Juggernaut's issues (some serious some nitpicks but all of them still valid as issues. Also a good chance that I've missed some):

The obvious price issue. I've seen comparisons with the recent JW Mosasaurus which I think is a pretty good one to use. More pieces in that set, including some nice printed ones and some large parts for the boat... but it's about 1/3 of the price. The Juggernaut has more minifigures... but those are certainly not worth $100 (especially not with the issues they have too). 

Smaller than all previous ones (and no sidebuilds), but inflation-adjusted is more expensive than the 2016 set. 

Weird usage of sand blue (surprisingly accurate to have some on the wheels; I think it would've looked better if they'd used part 27925 but I suppose then they'd need 40 of them, but why did they do it for that patch over the front cabin?).

Serious structural issues. (Short and simple point but arguably the most important along with the price. SolidBrixStudios demonstrates it very well in his review.)

Stud shooters on the sides are at the wrong height if they're supposed to represent the missile launchers (should be at 3 studs higher to put them a bit above the red line).

Blue windows? Unless I'm missing something that's not particularly accurate, at least not to RotS where. 

Pathetic watchtower, and ridiculous that it can just be pulled out with no stopper or anything. 

Rear cabin has some very noticeable gaps.

Rear turret can't move. 

No main cannons, and no headlights. 

 

There are some ridiculous inaccuracies in the minifigures (left a gap to make this its own section). Some are stylistic choices like the lack of kamas which I personally hate but can accept is subjective as a design choice (though I'm not sure there's anyone who actually likes them). The things that are just unacceptable to me are the objective inaccuracies which people are probably sick of me mentioning by now but just in case the designer happens upon this post:

Bacara:

-His chest pad should be the same shape and size as an Airborne trooper's. Also, it should be grey with a red stripe, not black. 

-Missing the detonator he carries at the top of his backplate. They managed to include it on Neyo in 2014 so why not here?

-Helmet looks a bit weird. Things like the grey print for the cheeks and the print for the mouth not meeting as they should, and the various chipmunk comparisons going around. If Clone Army Customs can manage it why can't LEGO? Unlike with their 360° figures, there's nothing inherently different between the CAC helmet and the LEGO one; CAC just did it a lot better. This one's not really an objective inaccuracy; it just doesn't look great lol

Galactic Marine:

-Incorrect knees and boots (very lazy to just give them the standard Clone ones when they should have the same ones as the 41st Scout Troopers). 

-Inaccurate belt design:

...The belt is like []I-I-I[]

...when it should be []-I-I-[]

-Shoulder strap should match the 327th. They have the correct number of pouches (3) here, but it should go off to the side (it does attach to the belt, but around the side and not at the same position as the large pouch on the belt). It's as if they had different people making the Marine and the 327th trooper (+Bly) and the two of them didn't speak to each other. 

-Eyes are very inaccurate. Some people say they should be green, and yeah maybe. They definitely do have a green tint, but then so do Stormtroopers sometimes and we don't complain about those. What is really inaccurate though is how low down they're being printed when they should be touching the red at the top of the face (some people have had particularly bad misprinted ones but even the "good" ones aren't perfect). Also they should be connected, not be 2 separate eyes, and should not have the grey outline around them. 

Both Bacara and the Marines are missing their shoulder pauldrons. Bacara would've needed a new piece (or arm printing, or dual moulding some dark red onto his right shoulder) but for the Marines they could reuse Fives's in all-black. 

 

I simply can't understand how some of these inaccuracies slipped through. They always brag so much about how "every little garment has to be perfect" but it's just not true. Yes, some of them are nitpicks. But the designers still had to make choices with each detail they drew onto the design so why didn't they just... choose to make them good? Other than the pauldrons none of the minifigure issues would've affected production costs in any meaningful way. 

Edited July 8 by CallumPears

[Agent Kallus]

3 hours ago, CallumPears said:

Some are stylistic choices like the lack of kamas which I personally hate but can accept is subjective as a design choice (though I'm not sure there's anyone who actually likes them).

That would be me.

I think the fabric Kamas tend to look pretty terrible. They should just be keg decorations as other similar robes and skirts tend to be. That said to do them properly they should use dual molded legs and generously printed designs ( as in a decent amount of paint not the bare minimum amount of white that ends looking like a paler version of the colour underneath).

[CloneCommando99]

22 hours ago, Agent Kallus said:

Would an Advent calendar or magazine mini build suffice? That would improve your chances?

No.

Day #76 of asking for Lego to make a Tie Avenger.